COMMENT 67

Get on with Europe he European Union now exerts a crucial influence on the lives of most of the citizens of western Europe. Despite reservations on many details, this influence is generally consis- T tent with the values of the centre-left. In a gIobalised world, national macroeconomic

policy, for most economies, is conducted in the limited range permitted by the financial markets. It is therefore to be welcomed that thinking in the EU on monetary and fiscal policy is towards coordination in the interests of all. Together, countries have power to carry out democratically determined policies that alone they cannot begin to have.

There are, of course, concerns about pushing cooperation all the way to monetary union, a view reflected here by Arestis and Sawyer. But, as the ERM debacle suggests, floating exchange rates are the only feasible alternative to EMU and in such a system currency dealers rule the roost. Aversion to giving up the devaluation weapon has to be set against the long run benefits likely to flow from EMU not least, as Barrel and Pain show, in terms of jobs. More broadly, and as I have argued elsewhere, the pursual of broadly social democratic policies seems far more likely to be achieved within some kind of EMU than in the alternative floating rate world.

It may be, as David Cume forcibly argues, that EMU is necessary to keep the Single Market and hence the EU together, so that its importance is paramount. But while this issue is debated almost to death, the important issues of enlargement and competition policy are often neglected.

For economic as well as political reasons, there should be much more of a sense of urgency in getting into the EU the former Communist nations. As James Forder says, the benefits to all from a free trade area including these nations should be large: we should not delay until they are able to fully match all the EU ‘laws’ (the ‘acquis communitaire’) -although the EU institutions must be adapted to make a larger EU workable.

Traditionally the Left was suspicious of the fervour with which competition policy was used by the EU especially as it began to limit the use of old style industrial policy. But more recent thrnking returns to the view that the Left has everything to gain from a rigorous anti-trust policy and Francis McGowan’s belief that it may be being watered down is worrying.

Having said that, the application of tough competition policy is not without problems. In some areas there are reasons to avoid the segregation - in terms of quality and price -between consumers in different geographic areas and with varying incomes that competitive markets usually bring. For instance, we want the pensioner in the Shetlands to pay no more to send a letter to London than it costs a major firm based in Essex. However, in the absence of political institutions to determine the ’public interest’ the EU has been dominated by competition policy that strikes out cross-subsidy even for ‘public’ services. As Lionel Monnier suggests, Treaty amendments may be a way of allowing a richer set of issues to be considered in applying policy

Much is happening then in the real world of Europe. Most of it however is hardly considered by progressive policy thinkers. The left must start to seriously engage with Europe. That, as Mica Panic says, means making suggestions in tune with its basic driving forces. For too long we have had either total negativism or wildly unrealisable dreams. We can all benefit greatly from the EU but only if we get on with it.

rulings.

DAN CORRY

1070-35351961020067 i 01 51 2.0010 c 1996 THE ORYDEN PRESS